Guardian website:  
 

MoD developing 'fuel air' bomb
Doubts raised over legality of urban warfare device with impact of a tactical nuclear weapon

by Richard Norton-Taylor

Britain is developing a new type of a highly controversial weapon for urban warfare that uses an overwhelming combination of heat and pressure to destroy buildings and kill the occupants.

The "thermobaric" weapon, being designed by Ministry of Defence scientists is based on technology in 'fuel-air' bombs used by Russian troops in Grozny, the chechen capital, with an impact similar to that of a tactical nuclear weapon.

The technology was developed by the US which used 'fuel-air' bombs in the 1991 Gulf war.  They were designed as a replacement for napalm, widely used in Vietnam.

In a carefully worded statement, the MoD admitted yesterday it was "investigating the possibility of a future purchase of a weapon for use by the infantry in an urban environment designed to incapacitate the occupants of a defended building".

It was intended to be a "lightweight precision weapon which must be capable of being fired by a single soldier and capable of penetrating the wall of a building rather than having to be fired through a door or window".

The MoD added the weapon "must have a limited area of effect such that it can be safely used at ranges as close as 30 metres without risk of injury to either our own troops or civilians nearby".

It said it would be "irresponsible" not to keep developments in weapons technology under review, not least to develop protective measures.  If the army decided to buy the weapon, the ministry would "ensure this was fully in accordance with international law".

The weapons are particularly effective in confined spaces which amplify the shockwaves.  conventional body armour offers no protection.  Though based on similar technology to "fuel-air" weapons, it is believed the British-designed heat and pressure device will not use fuel and would be significantly smaller than US and Russian weapons.

Major Ian Orr, commander of the army's urban warfare training team, said yesterday the plan was to have the weapon available by 2005.  "We are looking at two areas, offensive and defensive," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.  "These things are out there, we've got to acknowledge that".

He added, "The lethality gradient is very abrupt.  it is much more effective against structures than conventional high explosive.  It can have serious effects on people".

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell said, "A lot of people in the United Kingdom will be surprised to learn that the Ministry of Defence is taking such an interest in a weapon which is designed for urban warfare."

The decision to develop the weapon raised questions "as to when and in what circumstances British forces might be expected to use a weapon that has such barbaric and severe consequences".

Under the Geneva convention, Mr Campbell said, "countries using weapons of any kind are obliged only to use proportionate force and to ensure civilians are not subject to the indiscriminate consequences of use of that force".

Joost Hilterman, of the International campaign group Human Rights Watch, questioned whether "thermobaric" weapons were legal.

"These are wide area weapons, and under international law there are clear limits on the use of weapons whose use cannot be limited to strict military objects", he said.

"We are very concerned that these weapons would be used near population centres, thereby posing a very serious threat to innocent civilians."

Paul Rogers, professor of peace studies at Bradford University, said yesterday that "thermobaric" bombs were part of a generation of area-impact weapons which had been almost entirely overlooked by people concerned with arms control.

"The MoD appears to be being economical with the truth" he said.  The devices were "devastating anti-personnel weapons".

An American army study found that weapons of the kind used by the Russians in Chechnya could have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon without the radiation.

It said those further away from the blast site would experience crushing injuries, concussion, multiple internal haemorrhages, collapsed lungs, ruptured eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets.